Al-Bazzār also narrated it in his Musnad (1/415/876): “Some of our associates narrated to us from ʿĪsā ibn al-Ḥaḍramī,” who related the same report. Its printed text contains some typographical errors.

I say: This is a good chain of transmission. Yaʿqūb ibn Ḥumayd has been subject to criticism, but not of a kind that lowers him beneath the rank at which his reports may be adduced as evidence. Al-Bukhārī regarded him as strong, as stated in al-Mughnī, and al-Ḥāfiẓ said: “Truthful, though he sometimes erred.”

Regarding ʿĪsā ibn al-Ḥaḍramī, Ibn Abī Ḥātim (3/274) reported from his father: “There is no objection to him.”

As for Kulthūm ibn ʿAlqamah—also called Kulthūm ibn al-Muṣṭaliq, after his most remote grandfather—Ibn Ḥibbān (5/335) declared him trustworthy. A number of people narrated from him, and it was said that he had Companionship. For this reason, al-Ḥāfiẓ stated definitively that he was trustworthy. Accordingly, I included one of his hadiths in Ṣaḥīḥ Abī Dāwūd (2703).

Note: When I compiled and published Ṣaḥīḥ al-Targhīb wa-al-Tarhīb, I excluded this hadith from it because al-Mundhirī had declared it weak by introducing it with the words, “It was narrated...,” and because al-Haythamī cited a defect in it, saying (3/62):

“...and it contains an unknown narrator.”

At that time, I had no option but to rely on the two of them, since I was unable to access its chain of transmission in those sources, especially the book of Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim. But when Allah Most High graciously brought them into print and enabled me to consult them and examine its chain of transmission, it became clear to me that the alleged defect does not apply—especially with respect to Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim’s chain. As for al-Bazzār’s chain, however, the defect is clear, since he did not name his shaykh, although I do not consider it unlikely that he was Yaʿqūb ibn Ḥumayd. As for